Composite/ wood bow comparisons

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:07 pm

Let's hear what you have heard/seen/personally tested.
I am much more interested in tests that allow the individual bows to play to their perceived strengths.
Make the arrow and string material the constant and draw the bow as far as you want. Use an overdraw on both bows if you have to.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:04 am

I don not think any one belives that this is a new issue

Last time at Paleo I spent hours searching for data on ELB and find nothing, exept about 180 fps shoots. They were more interested in hitting a trafficsign from 200 yards then give the data.
My stickbows had been more on the 50% then 60%. I guess it is normal till you get instructions by some who have done thousands of them.
I made some copys of M?llgard bows and thy come out 60-65 lb and just over 40J. And still 40J count as enough for hunting so I guess that is what they needed.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:39 am

This is the Menzies reference.

"Redhorse's bow: As reported, not finely finished, but well put together, with narrow 1" limbs with flat horn belly and crowned sinew. Wood siyahs for mass reduction. 46" long. 47lbs at 26", 51lb at 28". Braced 7.5". Instructions were to shoot it at 26", then 28" if it held together. About 8" of unbraced reflex, this bow has about the largest reflex of any bow I've tested so far.
My bow: Redoak board stave. 60" - 46lbs at 26". A good pyramid design with narrow outer limbs, slight handle bend. 14.5-ounces. A five-dollar, one-hour, bow made with a block plane only, sides and belly a mosaic of plane blade marks.
A wooden wedge stop was taped in place at 26", arrow mass adjusted to exactly 10-grains/lb with tape mass, eyes insuring the arrow stopped at the stop.
Results: The composite bow = 166fps. The redoak bow = 167fps,
Tim Baker at Paleoplanet"

I took a bow that was an experiment with wood, it was Ash biascut, It was drying a week or two, don't remember, befor the last layer of sinew. Made the tips and brace it and shot few arrows and send it to US.
I send Steve the sinew so hi could put it on the bow, if survives the test. Don't know if hi did that or if the bow is still alive.

My conclusions is that a hornbow is much better then a stickbow even if it was beaten in this test

But you need to do the test within the bows performance limits, not other bows limit. Everything points that hornbow starts performance at a higher draw weight.
So make the fd-curve, crono the arrow, light mass and high mass. And you got all you need to know.

Botondbow · Post by **Botondbow** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:51 am

Last summer we conducted a bow and arrow test. Unfortunately the tested bows' draw weights were not really within war-bow category but it might give some info. Additionally, due to the very hot temperature performance was lover than in a normal conditions.

Should someone want to compare the result (mainly speed and some distances) of horn bows with others pls. see this link:
http://www.botondbow.com/bow-and-arrow-test---2011

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:59 am

Patrick Menzies wrote:I think Kviljio used the same arrow to test his Ipe/boo flight bow and his Turkish bow. Have you seen his results from those shots?
Please let me know what you have seen before I do all the research that you should have at least dabbled in before you became so sure of your stance.

The arrow was not the same. I used the same arrow for my two functional "turkish" bows, which both ended up shooting about the same 271 and 269 I think. The first bow was much heavier than the second, but both bows are far from correctly designed and do not represent any good source of comparison against my rather highly optimized Ipe/bamboo-ready-to-break-any-moment wood bow.

Some of Adam K.'s high-end turkish flightbows would be a more valid comparison, and there is no doubt in my mind that those bows would out-shoot any wooden bow any day. Ever heard someone shooting 357FPS with a wooden bow?

To me it is really quite clear. Some horn bow designs might not be more efficient than a wooden bow, but a tradition does not change that easily. If you grew up as a mongolian archer, you would want a typical mongolian bow even if there hypothetically could exist a better shooting wooden bow. There was of course a lot more than efficiency in the mind of the ancient bowyer.

This boils the discussion down to "my dad is stronger than yours"

It would certainly be interesting to see a well documented comparison of the two technologies, but it would have close to zero historical implications.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:02 pm

My basic point is that it appears that all composite armed warriors were not actually shooting weapons where every guy had a bow that would shoot 500 yards.
Adam's bow which shot 357 and would have theoretically reached over 700 yards has obviously bbeen duplicated by wood vbecause the wooden footbow record is well over 800 yards.
Simple math, right?

redhawk · Post by **redhawk** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:41 pm

Kviljo, what is making me such upset about hornbowyers is all theirs "ifs" and "buts", but no real outstanding results. Even Adam?s 357f/s has never been proved beside his machine- tests, I?m still waiting since years for that.
Since decades the results at the Salt Flats are speaking for themselves, please leave the maybe- mode right now.
Michael

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:28 pm

What's the problem with that?
If he did that, he did that.
Salt lake, what do they shoot there, 50 lb? 150lb? or what?

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:10 pm

"..It would certainly be interesting to see a well documented comparison of the two technologies, but it would have close to zero historical implications..." - words of wisdom.

I am reluctant to post in this thread since I believe I have done my work and better let others move forward. It seems to me everyone wants to compare best with the best, not the average bows.

If you go into the subject of average bows, then look at the historical types. The Mollegabet bow (actually a one and only example of a childs bow?), so much reproduced, represents a tiny fraction of the selfbows in the world. Any other selfbow would be hard pressed to show something better that 160fps/10gr/lb, if that. Remember 150fps was considered average performance before Steve Gardner mass experiments, tip-narrowed laminates and belly-baked bows by Marc StLouis? Not all historical styles of hornbows are equal as well, but I do not see anything to tell me the hornbows were inferor to the selfbows before that time.

If we now move on to the best bows, and look into the flight bows shot in Utah, what do we see? Highly developed self and laminated bows against a handful of hornbows: Jaap's light weight bows and Bede's bows. One of them a 51+in ntn overbuilt Turkish target bow never intended to be shot for flight, with wide limbs which was supposed to be drawn to 30 inches minimum (I know, I made it). And both guys struggling to shoot with a siper. Hardly the best combinaton for the competition are they?

Lets make more bows and see what happens. There is also a problem with the "standard" test of 10gr/lb. Most bows of all kinds, selfbows and the hornbows, show very similar arrow velocity at more than about 9-10gr/lb and practically the same at over 12gr/lb. On the other hand, the short bows begin to get better at less than 5gr/lb. Since hornbows are short, then how about a new standard of, say 4gr/lb, at least in comparing flight bows?

Adam

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:24 pm

What period was 150 considered average for?
The records from the 30's show that selfbows wwre shooting even better back then.
It seems that right now that average hornbow speed is only hovering around the 170 mark, if that.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:15 pm

Q for Adam, I have my bow indoor and its winter time. Would it be safe to brace and shoot? Hum under 30% indoor for months. I think it will be zero or warmer tomorow, maybe I shot my 300+m arrow trough crono just for fun

Adam Karpowicz · Post by **Adam Karpowicz** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:57 pm

The glue gets brittle at low RHs (hide glue more than fish). Horn and sinew as well, but both still remain tough, although harder to bend. If the glue cracks, the horn may delaminate.

But, if there is little or no reflex in the sals, I would not worry too much, provided the bow has been shot before. If it is a new bow, I'd wait till spring.

Redhorse · Post by **Redhorse** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:03 pm

Some reflex, I hear cracks when I draw it, not full draw. Put it in bathroom over night? Or outdoor, heavy rain tonight.

Patrick Menzies · Post by **Patrick Menzies** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:19 pm

Sounds like a reliable war weapon to me. Didn't you just joke that the Khan wasn't likely to call a halt to the battle to rest the bows? :lol:

Justin Ma · Post by **Justin Ma** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:16 pm

Kviljo wrote:To me it is really quite clear. Some horn bow designs might not be more efficient than a wooden bow, but a tradition does not change that easily. If you grew up as a mongolian archer, you would want a typical mongolian bow even if there hypothetically could exist a better shooting wooden bow. There was of course a lot more than efficiency in the mind of the ancient bowyer.

Agreed, Kviljo. It all depends on circumstance.

Mao Yuanyi's Wu Bei Zhi (a military treatise from 1621) has a chapter about military bows. He notes the resilience of self bows and wooden or bamboo laminates in humid climates, which is why they were preferred for Southern engagements. However, these military self and laminate bows were not known for their cast, which is why they preferred horn bows in Northern battles. Stephen's translation of the chapter is here: http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=17103#17103